Zero Punctuation: Lego City Undercover

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

ResonanceSD:
snip

Sooo... are you gonna back up your hate-filled points? Or are you just going to keep treating your opinion as fact while dismissing logical arguments? Try all you might, but you don't get the final say in what games or consoles are "good" or "bad", especially without giving a reason.

OT: Aside from the expected Nintendo hate, this episode was kinda funny. I found Lego City hilarious and a joy to play through, so I recommend it to anyone who has a WiiU.

Madmanonfire:

ResonanceSD:
snip

Sooo... are you gonna back up your hate-filled points? Or are you just going to keep treating your opinion as fact while dismissing logical arguments? Try all you might, but you don't get the final say in what games or consoles are "good" or "bad", especially without giving a reason.

OT: Aside from the expected Nintendo hate, this episode was kinda funny. I found Lego City hilarious and a joy to play through, so I recommend it to anyone who has a WiiU.

I'll just skip a step and quote myself to save time.

ResonanceSD:

Nah, not just me.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/21/4012812/mobile-games-beat-handheld-games-in-consumer-spending-last-quarter

Mobile games beat handheld games in consumer spending last quarter

"The concept that Android and iOS smartphones and tablets would make a major dent in the portable gaming market is nothing new. Last year's PlayStation Vita launch sparked a debate on whether dedicated portable gaming devices have much of a future, and Nintendo had to dramatically cut the price of the 3DS the year before thanks to lower than expected sales. Now, some new data from research firms IDC and App Annie further reinforces the tough position Nintendo and Sony find themselves in - consumer spending on gaming apps in Apple's App Store and on Google Play eclipsed spending on dedicated portable console games from Nintendo and Sony in the fourth quarter of last year. More specifically, spending on dedicated portable console games was highly seasonal - 60 percent of Q4 spending took place in December, likely as consumer picked up games for Christmas presents. iOS and Android game spending, on the other hand, was more evenly distributed."

There you go mate, it's now been sourced to someone else too.

Nice avatar. Back when 3rd party developers actually made new stuff for Nintendo. Tell me, where did Rareware go?

RTR:
That still doesn't change the fact that videogames started out as toys and have always been toys.
Yes, they're a great medium for creating experiences for the user and yes, games have been getting more complex and also geared to a more adult audience (as of late), but I think it's very miopic for gamers to stick up their noses and claim that videogames are art and should be taken seriously all the time without acknowledging that they're talking about what are essentially playthings.

I mean, if you were to say something like "I'm going to experience a game", you're going to sound like a pretentious asshat.

Again, a game does not fall under the category of a toy. That goes for any kind of game, not just video games. A toy is something you make your own entertainment with, whereas a game provides a set of rules or mechanics that the player adheres to. None of this is a scoffing dismissal of toys, by the way; I said that video games are "their own art form" because, given that art is something created for the purpose of provoking an emotional response, toys are artistic works as well. But games, video- and otherwise, are simply not toys and never have been.

Moreover, I do play video games for the experiences they provide. I wouldn't use "experience" as the verb with which I describe that action, but I also wouldn't say "I'm going to experience a film," even though that would be completely accurate. A lot of people think that video games need to be fun, and they're completely wrong, just as they would be wrong to say that watching a movie has to be fun and therefore something like Requiem for a Dream is a terrible movie for that sole reason. What a game, film, or any other piece of art needs to be is engaging. Fun just happens to be the way with which the overwhelming majority of games go about it. But there's very little fun to be found in, for example, Spec Ops: The Line, and that very fact is precisely why that game has received the praise and attention it has. For that matter, the entire survival horror genre is built upon being actively unpleasant for the player.

We're well past the point where the chief reason for playing a video game is to win it. We pick up a game to live it.

ResonanceSD:

Christ, do you want to buy mine? I was considering waiting for Fire emblem, but I don't want to give these clowns any more money.

A bit late I already picked up one of these puppies ( http://www.gamestop.com/nintendo-3ds/consoles/3ds-system-black-gold-recharged-refurbished/107542 ) locally for less than the price listed there.

Nice avatar. Back when 3rd party developers actually made new stuff for Nintendo. Tell me, where did Rareware go?

Last I saw they periodicity turn out awful games on the 360 because IIRC they are owned by Microsoft, and for as much as I dislike Nintendo anymore I don't see how that is their fault.

Bio shock had some interesting discussion points but I'm hardly feeling the rest of my games are dulled in comparison.

Yahtzee loved Bioshock: Infinite more then I imagined him to.
.. . Actually I want to replay it now- though 1999 mode seems ridiculously hard to me.

OT: I've tried playing the Lego games like this one. They're alright but demand you to collect things all the time.
I especially dislike the puzzles, even adults or my friends around my age struggled to figure them out so how are kids going to even get the slightest clue as to progressing? All well. Still great review.

Also .. you're having a new show with Jim? Whow. Didn't see that coming!

The Wii U's "gimmick" can also be ignored by developers, since the button setup is identical to your average controller. Ignored, used minimally, whatever.

And honestly, it probably should be ignored if a company doesn' feel tey can use it to its potential. Not every game can be a TWEWY or Okami in terms of alternate controller use, and not every developer is equipped to make use of it. So those guys can just make whatever games they normally would, using the pro controller, and/or slap in the off-screen play option somewhere.

Eh, maybe I'm biased. I mean, I already feel like I got my money's worth with the 3DS, and will coninue to, and I already have plans for Wii U games whenever I get one. Also, I don't see how the Wii U's tablet is much different in execution from the DS's second screen.

ResonanceSD:

ccggenius12:

ResonanceSD:

Lol, 3DS has one good title on it that isn't a port of something they've made previously. As a new console, it's an abject failure.

Are you lumping in sequels with ports? Because off hand, it has Professor Layton and the Mask of Miracles, Fire Emblem: Awakening, Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon, Final Fantasy: Theatrhythm, Kingdom hearts 3d, and *obligatory Mario game*. There's also more JRPG's than you can shake a stick at. Granted if that's not your style the device is kind of barren, but your preferences aren't Nintendo's fault.

Also, just gonna throw out that Shovel Knight is going to be available in the e-store, so... portable version is best version?

and out of that laundry list, FE: A is the only decent title there.

And your source is?
Metacritic scores for the above games, in order
82, 91, 86, 78, 75, 90. If 91/100 is your definition of "decent", then I believe we can all safely ignore your opinions on this subject going forward.

duchaked:
lol I don't go to the gym anymore for the same reason, Yahtzee

LEGO LotR had voice acting in it, but I personally felt it got away with it cuz I love the films but still.

LEGO Batman 2 also had voice acting and an original story. Man, that game was awesome.

Do you think Luigi's Mansion 2 is going to be his next review, since he mentioned that he was playing it.

Man, I can't wait for Shovel Knight

Enlong:
The Wii U's "gimmick" can also be ignored by developers, since the button setup is identical to your average controller. Ignored, used minimally, whatever.

And honestly, it probably should be ignored if a company doesn' feel tey can use it to its potential. Not every game can be a TWEWY or Okami in terms of alternate controller use, and not every developer is equipped to make use of it. So those guys can just make whatever games they normally would, using the pro controller, and/or slap in the off-screen play option somewhere.

The problem is how underpowered the Wii U is compared to the Playstation 4 and, presumably, the next Xbox. There are plenty of Xbox 360 and PS3 games that could have worked just fine as Wii ports, but the overwhelming majority of developers couldn't be bothered to downgrade their games' graphics and other hardware strains to the point that the Wii could run them - especially when their core audience was already playing their games on the competing consoles (the radical difference in its control input didn't help either, of course, but as you point out, the Wii U thankfully doesn't share this issue). I'd happily consider buying a Wii U if it offered the same variety of game selection that its competitors will (the obsolete graphics don't concern me much) in addition to a collection of exclusive titles that could only ever be developed for the Wii U thanks to the uniqueness of its controller (to say nothing of first-party Nintendo games), but as Yahtzee mentioned, that's not what's happening, and I can't see the Wii U's situation getting much better after Sony and Microsoft's consoles come out and render it obsolete altogether.

(Although there does exist a possible saving grace: the graphical plateau. As has been the trend since basically forever, the next console generation's graphical improvement is quite a bit less than the improvement that came before it. So perhaps, if the graphical gap turns out to be small enough, the Wii U may not suffer the same fate as its predecessor after all.)

GodzillaGuy92:

RTR:
That still doesn't change the fact that videogames started out as toys and have always been toys.
Yes, they're a great medium for creating experiences for the user and yes, games have been getting more complex and also geared to a more adult audience (as of late), but I think it's very miopic for gamers to stick up their noses and claim that videogames are art and should be taken seriously all the time without acknowledging that they're talking about what are essentially playthings.

I mean, if you were to say something like "I'm going to experience a game", you're going to sound like a pretentious asshat.

Again, a game does not fall under the category of a toy. That goes for any kind of game, not just video games. A toy is something you make your own entertainment with, whereas a game provides a set of rules or mechanics that the player adheres to. None of this is a scoffing dismissal of toys, by the way; I said that video games are "their own art form" because, given that art is something created for the purpose of provoking an emotional response, toys are artistic works as well. But games, video- and otherwise, are simply not toys and never have been.

Moreover, I do play video games for the experiences they provide. I wouldn't use "experience" as the verb with which I describe that action, but I also wouldn't say "I'm going to experience a film," even though that would be completely accurate. A lot of people think that video games need to be fun, and they're completely wrong, just as they would be wrong to say that watching a movie has to be fun and therefore something like Requiem for a Dream is a terrible movie for that sole reason. What a game, film, or any other piece of art needs to be is engaging. Fun just happens to be the way with which the overwhelming majority of games go about it. But there's very little fun to be found in, for example, Spec Ops: The Line, and that very fact is precisely why that game has received the praise and attention it has. For that matter, the entire survival horror genre is built upon being actively unpleasant for the player.

We're well past the point where the chief reason for playing a video game is to win it. We pick up a game to live it.

My point is that not every video game is, for example, Spec Ops. I was originally going to bring up the fact that there is a significant amount of children who play videogames, which gets constantly ignored by the industry as a whole, given how today the most marketed, high profile games are for older audiences, a stark difference to the 80's-early 2000's era of gaming that could appeal to multiple audiences, not just 20 something adult males. If the industry continues this way, there will come a time where this demographic will not be able to sustain it. One way or another, these people may not keep playing as much as they do now because real life will get in the way. And many of those other people who were alienated before won't be so eager to jump in just like that. The effect of this may not be felt now, but at the course we're going, the long run will be painful for the industry.

At the end of the day, both Spec Ops and, for another example, Angry Birds, are videogames. One is about a self-commentary on the narrative fixations of military FPSs and the role the player has in them. The other is a game about firing birds from a slingshot. They are vastly different experiences that both serve different purposes,one vastly more shallow than the other, but stripped down to their bare essentials, they're still videogames and their purpose is to entertain, and only one of them is determined For all we know, Angry Birds, and the mobile gaming revolution in general, might serve as a platform for younger generations to get into videogames when they otherwise would've not. Some of these children might grow up withholding these games as THE toys of their childhood, for good or ill.

Which is exactly why it rubs me the wrong way when Yahtzee wisecrasks at the idea of videogames being toys, as if associating videogames with toys would automatically make games seem childish(more so). It sounds incredibly shortsighted and possibly a bit snobbish. It's exactly the sort of thing that can make videogames as a whole grow old instead of grow up. Detaching the entire medium from its roots could make videogames lose their appeal to many people, myself included. I believe it's an important element of a person's maturity to accept certain things, particularly things that might seem childish or immature for an adult to even consider, for what they are as opposed to outright rejecting them in a manner befitting a "brooding" teenager. The idea of having videogames doing that as a rule, to think of its own medium as art first and entertainment second, is absurd to me and could probably make me abandon videogames altogether. Now obviously, the best case scenario is a game that can do both well.
Going back to Spec Ops, it's mediorce at best, a run-of-the-mill shooter, as an actual game but transcendant as an interactive experience (it was you, the player, who made the call to shoot the white phosphorus that killed all those civilians). Now, take for example Bioshock Infinite. On the one hand, it's a profound story of a man haunted by the sins of his past as they lead him down the road to self destruction. On the other hand, I can zip around the city on a rail as I dangle on it with a magnetic hook, I can drink potions that give me superpowers, and I can shoot down a minigun-weilding robot George Washington. This is the kind of exhilaration in games that I don't think can be achieved if one doesn't approach the development of a game while thinking "Will the player enjoy this?"

I play videogames because they let me feel like I can do things I know I can't experience in the real world. Playing a good game to me is one that evokes a sense of wonder and escapism from the mundane into the exciting, which is honestly not all that different if I were to amuse myself any other way in between responsibilities and other priorites.
Unless you're the kind of person for whom videogames are a way of life (i.e. videogames are your job) then yes, a videogame is not a toy. That doesn't mean one can ignore the fact that for a far larger amount of people, they serve to amuse them, preferably in between responsibilities and the priorities of their daily lives, much like a toy would do.

Silly Yahtzee, I'm not 30 ;)

RTR:
Detaching the entire medium from its roots could make videogames lose their appeal to many people, myself included. I believe it's an important element of a person's maturity to accept certain things, particularly things that might seem childish or immature for an adult to even consider, for what they are as opposed to outright rejecting them in a manner befitting a "brooding" teenager.

On this, we're in full agreement. In case I wasn't being clear before, I don't object to the concept that video games are toys because of some idea that toys are innately childish. I object merely because they're different, in the same way I'd object to the claim that video games are a type of movie.

RTR:
The idea of having videogames doing that as a rule, to think of its own medium as art first and entertainment second, is absurd to me and could probably make me abandon videogames altogether. Now obviously, the best case scenario is a game that can do both well.

But art, being designed to provoke an emotional response, is inherently entertaining. If a video game puts a great amount of effort into being a work of art and succeeds, its entertainment value will automatically follow. So it's foolish for a work in an artistic medium not to make the attempt to be artistic.

"Entertainment," by the way, does not mean that having fun is essential to the experience. Books and films are entertainment as much as video games are, but you don't read 1984 if you're looking for a pleasant time. Nor does artistic merit somehow preclude children from being participants: One need look no further than Pixar to see that (or for that matter, Disney in general). And because art aims to evoke emotion, something that succeeds in being very fun is thus a very successful work of art. There wasn't that much to the original Super Mario Bros. apart from being fun, but that was a landmark artistic work, and tremendously important to the medium as a whole. I would consider Painkiller to be a far superior piece of art to Haze, in spite of the former offering nothing but simple, straightforward fun while the latter was a deconstruction of militaristic shooters, blind patriotism/allegiance, the glory of armed conflict, etc. Painkiller succeeded wildly in what it was trying to do, but Haze's lofty aspirations are worthless because it failed to meet them - just as a game that tried and failed to be enjoyable would be a failure. I don't want the games that are fun and nothing else to go away, because then I'd miss out on some fantastic games. But if we're so concerned with fun that we choose to write off games that aren't meant to be fun regardless of what else they might have to offer, we'll miss out on some equally fantastic games.

RTR:
Now, take for example Bioshock Infinite. On the one hand, it's a profound story of a man haunted by the sins of his past as they lead him down the road to self destruction. On the other hand, I can zip around the city on a rail as I dangle on it with a magnetic hook, I can drink potions that give me superpowers, and I can shoot down a minigun-weilding robot George Washington. This is the kind of exhilaration in games that I don't think can be achieved if one doesn't approach the development of a game while thinking "Will the player enjoy this?"

Certainly it can. Instead of thinking, "Will the player enjoy this?", it could (and should) instead be thinking, "Will the player be engaged by this?" Enjoyment is merely one out of many different types of engagement, and video games aren't doing themselves any favors by limiting themselves to a single form of engagement. Again, that's not to say that BioShock Infinite is a weaker or less valid game for being so much fun - far from it - or that it "should" be engaging in a different way. But the same thing would hold true if it hypothetically did choose to engage in a different way, and any cries that it "should" instead be fun would be just as invalid.

RTR:
I play videogames because they let me feel like I can do things I know I can't experience in the real world. Playing a good game to me is one that evokes a sense of wonder and escapism from the mundane into the exciting, which is honestly not all that different if I were to amuse myself any other way in between responsibilities and other priorites.
Unless you're the kind of person for whom videogames are a way of life (i.e. videogames are your job) then yes, a videogame is not a toy. That doesn't mean one can ignore the fact that for a far larger amount of people, they serve to amuse them, preferably in between responsibilities and the priorities of their daily lives, much like a toy would do.

Quite right. But games don't need to cripple themselves out of the gate in order to fill that role. Just as it's perfectly valid to criticize a game that concerns itself with being like a film before fulfilling its function as a game, a game shouldn't try to make itself like a toy before it tries to make itself a game. There's nothing wrong with films or toys, just as there's nothing wrong with ranch dressing, but just because that's true doesn't mean it's advisable to put ranch dressing on an ice cream sundae.

Caramel Frappe:
OT: I've tried playing the Lego games like this one. They're alright but demand you to collect things all the time.
I especially dislike the puzzles, even adults or my friends around my age struggled to figure them out so how are kids going to even get the slightest clue as to progressing? All well. Still great review.

Also .. you're having a new show with Jim? Whow. Didn't see that coming!

Perhaps I'm being selectively critical here, but...

Right, so LEGO Underwear (now that I mention it, Yahtzee didn't twist the game's name!) managed to pad itself out somewhat by forcing you to collect things, AND made you wait to unlock some game mechanics in order to access some of the collectables. Everybody with me there?

Batman: Arkham Asylum did that too. The collectables in BAA weren't really mandatory, but enough collectables or exploration whatevers could tweak your score just enough to get you more health and unlock some Bat-toys. So when *I* am playing Batman AA, they are reasonably mandatory, and that was one of several things that I didn't like about Bleat. Yet Yahtzee positively adored sheep (BAA). [I'm guessing that this is also why he gave positive reviews of CoD4 and GoW2; there was enough fun bits in one part of the game that drowned out other bits that were trying to flag down Critic-Yahtzee.] I found it particularly galling that one of the neat toys that you need to access things was in the trunk of the damn Batmobile all along! Silly Batman bumbling along when all this time he just needed to remember to go back to his car!

And yes, a Thank God for Yahtzee show would be weird. I was in the process of forming the impression that they were not speaking of each other much in the way that you don't talk about the way that the weird guy across the street has started to dress more like you do, and painted his entire house the same colors as yours.

KarlMonster:
Right, so LEGO Underwear (now that I mention it, Yahtzee didn't twist the game's name!) managed to pad itself out somewhat by forcing you to collect things, AND made you wait to unlock some game mechanics in order to access some of the collectables. Everybody with me there?

Batman: Arkham Asylum did that too. The collectables in BAA weren't really mandatory, but enough collectables or exploration whatevers could tweak your score just enough to get you more health and unlock some Bat-toys. So when *I* am playing Batman AA, they are reasonably mandatory, and that was one of several things that I didn't like about Bleat. Yet Yahtzee positively adored sheep (BAA). [I'm guessing that this is also why he gave positive reviews of CoD4 and GoW2; there was enough fun bits in one part of the game that drowned out other bits that were trying to flag down Critic-Yahtzee.]

Well, in a way, yes. The reason the collectible-hunting in Arkham Asylum is arguably valid is because 1) it isn't the focus of the game, 2) it doesn't exist merely for its own sake, and 3) it's in service to the parts of the game that are central and do exist for their own sake - the combat, stealth, and story - by helping to unlock upgrades. I haven't played Lego City Undercover, but based on the review and my experience with other Lego games, it seems that between the great prominence of collectible-hunting and the fact that elements such as the combat are lackluster and aren't improved by finding/unlocking things, the collectible-hunting is essentially the primary focus of the game - which isn't fun when there's no other reason for it.

GodzillaGuy92:

Because video games are their own art form.

Toymaking is also its own art form. And many video games don't contain any real artistic content

You wouldn't refer to a film or novel as a toy, nor would you even refer to a board game or trading card game as a toy.

Actually, I would refer to many examples of those things as toys. I certainly wouldn't refer to a film like "Shallow Hal" as art. It's nothing more than a cheap diversion. And a pulpy romance novel or Star Wars fan fiction is barely art.

A toy is something you play with; a video game is something you play (i.e. experience).

How is playing with a toy not an experience? And how is a video game not something you play with?

The Gentleman:

DVS BSTrD:
Other than the Last of Us there really isn't much coming out this year to get excited about it there?

Well, there's Splintercell: Arkham Asylum Blacklist, Shadowrun Returns, and a handful of other games whose names escape me now...

Okay, it's all downhill from now...

Watch Dogs?

Why do I feel as if everyone is forgetting about Watch Dogs except for me?

Well, he stopped pissing all over the Wii U long enough to talk about the game for a minute or two, so I guess that's something.

The choice of 'undefended' came either from genius or experience. Which was it Yahtzee?

Aardvaarkman:

GodzillaGuy92:

Because video games are their own art form.

Toymaking is also its own art form.

I already said as much in a different post. That's also why I said video games are "their own art form" rather than saying something like "video games are art, unlike toys."

Aardvaarkman:
And many video games don't contain any real artistic content

[...]

I certainly wouldn't refer to a film like "Shallow Hal" as art. It's nothing more than a cheap diversion. And a pulpy romance novel or Star Wars fan fiction is barely art.

Art is something created for the primary purpose of inducing an emotional reaction. In other words, art is diversion, even though it is fully capable of being something more substantial than that. Shallow Hal, cheap romance novels, or Star Wars fanfiction may not succeed in having an emotional effect on you, but they're still art because there will always be someone out there who is legitimately affected by those works. They aren't somehow "less" artistic because of their nature; their nature merely makes them bad. That's why Roger Ebert was wrong to claim that video games are not art. He made the mistake of thinking that, because he personally had no appreciation for games (regardless of what they have to offer to people of different inclinations), it invalidates their artistic status. I may not like rap music, but plenty of others do, so I'm not about to claim that it doesn't have artistic merit or doesn't qualify as music.

Aardvaarkman:
How is playing with a toy not an experience? And how is a video game not something you play with?

Again, reading my other posts would come in useful. Playing with a toy is an experience, but you typically don't experience the toy itself, whereas you do experience a video game in the same way that you experience a film or novel. You usually don't play with a game (video- or otherwise), you simply play it, because what a game offers is a directed experience dictated by its rules or mechanics. With a toy, it's up to you to create your own experience with it. That doesn't make them erroneous, it just makes them different.

I'm not trying to say that the comparison between toys and video games is simply invalid; the two are quite similar in what they have to offer the person engaging with them. But to claim that toys are a giant blanket which video games fall under, as opposed to the two being kindred but separate entities, is simply incorrect.

ToastiestZombie:

The Comfy Chair:

Warachia:

And how exactly do you know he didn't get to the end? I can think of several videos off the top of my head in the last few weeks where he brings up the ending/final boss for a specific reason.

I wish Lego would branch out and do more things that work with their lego characters, for example, imagine NeverDead with lego characters, casually popping your arms on and off, throwing your head down narrow passages so you can collect things, and it would be an E rated game.

Because people who are Nintendo fans need to tell themselves Yahtzee has a massive bias. Something he himself has brought up many a time.

The problem is, Nintendo fans, is that Nintendo's consoles have done very little for core gaming in many years. That's why he, and most 'core' gamers, don't give much of a rats ass about Nintendo consoles. Handheld? sure, the DS is definitely best overall handheld (woo, now i'm going to be attacked by Sony fanboys too!). Consoles? lol, nope.

His retort to that was "B... but I liked Paper Mario!". Liking one game from a franchise doesn't mean you don't have a bias over a whole company. LCU wasn't even developed by Nintendo, yet he feels like it's perfectly fine to spend a lot of time in his video bashing Nintendo and Nintendo fans. How would you like it if for every PC exclusive he reviewed he spent two minutes talking about how he thinks all PC owners are neckbeard losers? This whole site has an anti-Nintendo bias, for example just today the news of a brand new Zelda game wasn't posted even though it was pretty big news, when the news of an internet retailer supposedly leaking GT6 gets posted. You wouldn't see other Lego games Yahtzee has reviewed called "last resorts" and much worse because they're not on Nintendo consoles.

You may need to look at some of his older PC gaming videos from around the times PC games were on the decline :P Obviously nowadays he doesn't do it because, well, PC is basically the last great hope for gaming in the form of the indie scene, and even yahtzee himself (a self procliamed 'console man' in the past) has recently declared the love for what PC special in terms of the more open nature of it.

So, you see, i don't think he or anyone here honestly has a bias against Nintendo, they just don't really care about what Nintendo are doing. Nintendo haven't pushed boundaries in core gaming in a long time. When they do something like bioshock: infinite or the walking dead with their own games, providing something genuinely trying to do something not seen before with the medium, then you can complain about 'bias'.

If they release a good game, people say it's good. If they release the same game over and over again, people get bored. The reason why people stopped raving about nintendo en masse a few years ago is because there's nothing to rave about any more. They've done nothing to further the core gaming medium. Not with hardware, not with games.

Also, Nintendo don't need defending, they're a big company, who can take care of themselves, right until the point they go bankrupt. Going around complaining about people having a bias against a company which has done nothing for core gaming in ages on a core gaming site is like complaining about people into rock music not appreciating dubstep. There may be some crossover, but they're different interests. Nintendo isn't a 'core' gaming company any more for the most part, and neither are their consoles.

Sad, but, true. Now, unleash all the vitriol you want, i really, honestly, don't care.

head desk tricycle:

The Comfy Chair:
Because people who are Nintendo fans need to tell themselves Yahtzee has a massive bias. Something he himself has brought up many a time.

The problem is, Nintendo fans, is that Nintendo's consoles have done very little for core gaming in many years. That's why he, and most 'core' gamers, don't give much of a rats ass about Nintendo consoles. Handheld? sure, the DS is definitely best overall handheld (woo, now i'm going to be attacked by Sony fanboys too!). Consoles? lol, nope.

You're saying Yahtzee doesn't have a bias, and that he only dislikes Nintendo consoles because they've done very little for core gaming, but that's actually the definition of a bias. It just means that he presents his own view at the expense of others.

A bias would be not liking a game because of the platform IF the platform is on par with the others. That's not been the case. The Wii U wouldn't have made LCU any better overall, but being able to play it without the tea tray running out of juice would have made it a bit less frustrating i'd wager. Can you use the 'normal' control pad with LCU without the tea tray?

The Comfy Chair:
You may need to look at some of his older PC gaming videos from around the times PC games were on the decline :P Obviously nowadays he doesn't do it because, well, PC is basically the last great hope for gaming in the form of the indie scene, and even yahtzee himself (a self procliamed 'console man' in the past) has recently declared the love for what PC special in terms of the more open nature of it.

That isn't proof that Yahtzee doesn't have an Anti-Nintendo bias, it's pretty much just proof Yahtzee loves indie games.

So, you see, i don't think he or anyone here honestly has a bias against Nintendo, they just don't really care about what Nintendo are doing. Nintendo haven't pushed boundaries in core gaming in a long time. When they do something like bioshock: infinite or the walking dead with their own games, providing something genuinely trying to do something not seen before with the medium, then you can complain about 'bias'.

No sorry, TWD and Bioshock Infinite aren't genuinely trying to do something we've not seen before. I loved TWD and I liked Infinite, but they both have generic gameplay or barely any gameplay at all (. The only new thing they tried is making a good story, and even that isn't something that hasn't been seen before. And anyway, Nintendo HAVE done stuff we haven't seen before, but because they use Mario and aren't story-driven they're ignored. What other 3D platforming games have been set in space with gravity mechanics before SMG, what other Just look at their consoles, no matter what you think about them you can't deny that the ideas for DS, Wii, 3DS and Wii U weren't ever really thought of before they came out. Also, saying Nintendo needs to make a game like Infinite or TWD is like telling Pixar to make a live-action film, Nintendo don't make adult, story-driven games, and when they do they're childish and funny. We've come to an age where people don't want new gameplay ideas or fun new things (those are gimmicks!), they want serious adult drama instead, even if the gameplay is mediocre.

And I do think people here have a Nintendo bias, and Yahtzee definitely does. If he didn't he wouldn't have spent half of this review bashing the Wii U instead of, you know, bashing the game. Even Super Mario Galaxy, one of Nintendo's actual newest ideas and best games last-gen was hated by him because it had Mario and he jumped about. Yahtzee, to me, just seems like the kind of gamer who just doesn't like Nintendo because he feels their games are too childish for him, with the only Nintendo games he liked being the ones with story and RPG elements. Not saying a bias is bad, but you can't deny that Yahtzee has a massive Nintendo hate bias.

The Comfy Chair:

head desk tricycle:

The Comfy Chair:
Because people who are Nintendo fans need to tell themselves Yahtzee has a massive bias. Something he himself has brought up many a time.

The problem is, Nintendo fans, is that Nintendo's consoles have done very little for core gaming in many years. That's why he, and most 'core' gamers, don't give much of a rats ass about Nintendo consoles. Handheld? sure, the DS is definitely best overall handheld (woo, now i'm going to be attacked by Sony fanboys too!). Consoles? lol, nope.

You're saying Yahtzee doesn't have a bias, and that he only dislikes Nintendo consoles because they've done very little for core gaming, but that's actually the definition of a bias. It just means that he presents his own view at the expense of others.

A bias would be not liking a game because of the platform IF the platform is on par with the others. That's not been the case. The Wii U wouldn't have made LCU any better overall, but being able to play it without the tea tray running out of juice would have made it a bit less frustrating i'd wager. Can you use the 'normal' control pad with LCU without the tea tray?

"The tea tray"
Jesus christ it's not that big, and it's actually comfy to hold. Have you ever actually held one, or are you just assuming things because of things you've seen on the internet.

Stalydan:

The Gentleman:

DVS BSTrD:
Other than the Last of Us there really isn't much coming out this year to get excited about it there?

Well, there's Splintercell: Arkham Asylum Blacklist, Shadowrun Returns, and a handful of other games whose names escape me now...

Okay, it's all downhill from now...

Watch Dogs?

Why do I feel as if everyone is forgetting about Watch Dogs except for me?

I remember it now. It is being released this year, right?

You should be thanking Lego City for making you play Luigi's Mansion.

I'm looking forward to The Wonderful 101 later this year(?)

VinLAURiA:
... Yeah, I don't even care anymore. Yahtzee played Javert to the Wii for five years and I doubt Wii U will change his mind. I could do without him being even more mean-spirited than his usual self whenever Nintendo systems come up, but hey: they're not his thing. He doesn't like "gimmicks," he doesn't like kiddy stuff, and if he had his way he'd even forgo his controller for a good neural input device. Whatever, different strains. And I don't feel like having all the little Yahtzites swarm and flame me whenever I disagree with his tastes anymore (though at least the Luigi's Mansion reference in this review means he possibly couldn't find enough to complain about for a full review of its own, so that's nice.)

Just one thing, Croshaw, since you brought it up: video games are toys. Wii U is a toy, 360's a toy, PS3's a toy. PS4 is an upcoming toy. Wii was a toy. 3DS and Vita are toys. People spend hundreds on gaming PCs so the PCs can run the digital toys they download onto them through the toy-delivery service Steam. The sooner you finally accept that this is an industry of toys, the better off you'll be. The next great medium? Yes. But it's for your own benefit that you realize where underneath the artistry and emotion you champion, you're ultimately still playing with toys. And there's nothing wrong with playing with toys, so stop trying to fight it.

So then movies are toys and books are as well? And music.

Is he bitter? I think he's bitter.

It's refreshing to hear Yahtzee's snark-attack again!

All players want is ever more powerful graphics machines to shoot virtual terrorists with.

it's weird to think about how old the Matrix really is...still holds up so well lol

speaking of which, I wonder how my old LEGOs are holding up...I seem to recall meaning to bring them out last summer but was too busy to haha

I might be some snotty elitist saying this, but vydeagems critics like Yahtzee \ Tycho \ AVGN cuss a little too much to be taken seriously. At least outside of our treehouse for cool kids.

You know, I don't know when they started as Lego Pirates of the Caribbean was the last one I bought but I played a recent demo before the Wii U came out, but Lego games had talking characters for a while now it seems.

Kinda makes me glad I haven't bought the licensed Lego games for a while.

Lego was more fun when you could build stuff with it in real life... Lego games was never that entertaining. That said when I saw the new Wii-U I thought.... "Yes when there finally is a zombie apocalypse I can capture and enslave a few zombies to walk on treadmills to power it up... I will never have to live in a game deprived apocalyptic world again."

But yes the Wii-U is like that nice to have but basically useless pieces of technology. The design itself is a disaster... However why I will own one and actually buy the new Lego title is not because it is good. No... No updates... No waiting for 40Gb of Game updates on a 25kb connection. You can actually play a game when you want to actually play it. No waiting for hours on end... I don't know if it is going to stay that way... Chances are slim.

BUT!!! This to me is important enough that I would go out and buy one... How sad is that :_(

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here